FDI in retail is a boon: Supreme Court

"consumer is king and if that is the philosophy working behind the policy then what is wrong in it."

May 02, 2013 12:32 am | Updated December 04, 2021 11:17 pm IST - New Delhi:

In a relief to the Centre, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the government’s proposal to allow foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail trade saying the move did not suffer from any unconstitutionality, illegality, arbitrariness or irrationality. File photo

In a relief to the Centre, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the government’s proposal to allow foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail trade saying the move did not suffer from any unconstitutionality, illegality, arbitrariness or irrationality. File photo

In a relief to the Centre, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the government’s proposal to allow foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail trade (MBRT) saying the move did not suffer from any unconstitutionality, illegality, arbitrariness or irrationality.

A three-judge bench of Justices R.M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph said “consumer is king and if that is the philosophy working behind the policy then what is wrong in it.” The Bench referred to the Centre’s counter and said the decision to allow FDI in retail has a legal basis – Foreign Exchange Management Act 2000. The court welcomed what it called the focus on benefiting the consumer by “enlarging the choice of purchase at more affordable prices and by eradicating the traditional trade intermediaries/middlemen to facilitate better access to the market [ultimate retailer] for the producer of goods.”

The Bench also said that the new policy aims to throw out middlemen, “who are a curse to Indian economy and who are sucking it.” Farmers will benefit significantly from the option of direct sales to organised retailers. The bench said: “This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power. The impugned policy cannot be said to suffer from any of the vires.”

The Bench also noted that the policy to allow FDI, up to 51 per cent in retail trade was only an enabling policy. “The State governments/Union Territories are free to take their own decisions in regard to implementation of the policy in keeping with local conditions.” It said the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) was empowered to make policy pronouncements and there was no merit in the contention that the Government of India had no authority to formulate the FDI policy.

Petitioner’s advocate Manoharlal Sharma said the notification was issued without any source of law and parliamentary approval. He said soon after the Union Cabinet made the decision, the notification was issued through an executive order.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.